Current Events Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hoopsaustin said:
Bc it wasnt the default rule so you as the movant have to clear unbelievable hurdles to change it. Tough luck. Look forward to hearing the continued *****ings for the next 50+ years of my life
Click to expand...

Because it wasn’t the default rule? I guess we better go back to Naismith’s original 13 rules.
 
BCSooners said:
Because it wasn’t the default rule? I guess we better go back to Naismith’s original 13 rules.
Click to expand...

Have any modern rules not been changed correctly through the correct procedures and process and showing the absolute needs for the same? Oh ya, they were..

To be clear, are you advocating that the constitution shouldn't even be followed to replace the EC now?
 
hoopsaustin said:
Have any modern rules not been changed correctly through the correct procedures and process and showing the absolute needs for the same? Oh ya, they were..

To be clear, are you advocating that the constitution shouldn't even be followed to replace the EC now?
Click to expand...

No, I’m advocating that the constitution be changed as it has been before.
 
Obama was the worst president in history. Obama is a criminal.

[TWEET]1309507288210845697[/TWEET]
 
steverocks35 said:
Actually I've been arguing that the electoral college is stupid and undemocratic and should be scrapped since the 1980s but keep making assumptions.

I think it should be changed because it disenfranchises millions of voters and makes the votes of people in a select few states count more, sometimes much more than the votes of people that live in other states.
Click to expand...

As someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican, I have to ask - What would you propose? I'm not saying the EC is perfect, but I certainly hope you are not pushing for a popular vote. That obviously won't work because those who live in big cities would decide who is elected President. Since 1960 (the first televised debate) there have been 15 elections...8 won by the Republican candidate and 7 by Democrats...can't get much closer than that...seems like there is a fair process in place. Plus, since you're a Democrat, be reminded that Bush Sr. would have won the 1992 Presidential Election over Clinton if they went by the popular vote.

You said those in big states determine the election. Actually, it's just one big state - Florida. NY and California go Democrat and Texas goes Republican. Nearly all of the southern states go Republican to counter that 2-1 Democrat advantage. As such, it really comes down to who is going to win those swing states like my state (North Carolina), Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Again, the system isn't perfect, but until something better comes along, it's the closest thing we have to a fair process.
 
WaymanFan said:
As someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican, I have to ask - What would you propose? I'm not saying the EC is perfect, but I certainly hope you are not pushing for a popular vote. That obviously won't work because those who live in big cities would decide who is elected President. Since 1960 (the first televised debate) there have been 15 elections...8 won by the Republican candidate and 7 by Democrats...can't get much closer than that...seems like there is a fair process in place. Plus, since you're a Democrat, be reminded that Bush Sr. would have won the 1992 Presidential Election over Clinton if they went by the popular vote.

You said those in big states determine the election. Actually, it's just one big state - Florida. NY and California go Democrat and Texas goes Republican. Nearly all of the southern states go Republican to counter that 2-1 Democrat advantage. As such, it really comes down to who is going to win those swing states like my state (North Carolina), Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Again, the system isn't perfect, but until something better comes along, it's the closest thing we have to a fair process.
Click to expand...

It's not close to the fairest thing possible. How can you say it's fair when a guy that got 3 million fewer votes became president? And it actually wouldn't be decided by big cities. You realize that voters of all persuasion live in cities too right? That's such a weird talking point. Why does the location of the voter in the United States matter so much to people? If you decided the election by popular vote, a Republican's vote in New York City would count the same as a Democrat's vote in Wyoming. One person, one vote, weighted the same. It's the only fair system.

Also, in 1992, Bill Clinton got 44+ million votes to George H. W. Bush's 39+ million votes so I'm not sure what bringing up 1992 has to do with it.
 
steverocks35 said:
And it actually wouldn't be decided by big cities.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. I saw the stat the other day, but forgot the exact numbers and I'm too lazy to go look this morning. But in short, if we went to the popular vote, the election would be decided most years by people that occupy less than 5% of the land mass in this country. That is just absurd to think about, and is why the EC does exactly what big has been crying about, in that it gives the entire country representation, and not just small pockets of people.
 
WTSooner said:
Yes, it would. I saw the stat the other day, but forgot the exact numbers and I'm too lazy to go look this morning. But in short, if we went to the popular vote, the election would be decided most years by people that occupy less than 5% of the land mass in this country. That is just absurd to think about, and is why the EC does exactly what big has been crying about, in that it gives the entire country representation, and not just small pockets of people.
Click to expand...

Why do you care more about land mass than people? I want people to decide, not land masses. If we get rid of the ridiculous electoral college then Republicans in cities and Democrats in rural areas will be heard as loudly as the majorities in those places.
 
It's such a weird talking point. "The election will be decided by the most people! THIS IS WRONG!"
I guess the people who live in cities should be punished because the population density is higher. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Almost all other free countries use the popular vote to choose their leaders. I don't hear them crying, "BUT THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CITIES, IT'S NOT FAIR!" How ridiculous are people in this country? It's amazing.
 
steverocks35 said:
It's such a weird talking point. "The election will be decided by the most people! THIS IS WRONG!"
I guess the people who live in cities should be punished because the population density is higher. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Almost all other free countries use the popular vote to choose their leaders. I don't hear them crying, "BUT THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CITIES, IT'S NOT FAIR!" How ridiculous are people in this country? It's amazing.
Click to expand...

You answered my question, Steve. You do not have any more of a viable solution as anyone else. I don't know why such a high percentage of democrats flock to big cities...they just do. North Carolina used to be a pure red state, but since so many people have migrated to this state from the north (most landing in the Charlotte area), it is now a swing-state. If such a high percentage of large-city Americans were Republicans, my guess is you would be a little less adamant about wanting the popular vote to decide the election.

As for the '92 election, if you are correct in what you said, then I will point some of the blame toward the Republicans who put bumper stickers on their cars. I lost count how many which said "Like the Majority of People, I Didn't Vote for Him". I took that as to meaning Bush got more votes than Clinton. However, that was the one election which there was a third viable candidate (I voted for Perot...and was hardly alone). As such, no one was going to get 50% of the votes in a three-horse race.
 
WaymanFan said:
You answered my question, Steve. You do not have any more of a viable solution as anyone else. I don't know why such a high percentage of democrats flock to big cities...they just do. North Carolina used to be a pure red state, but since so many people have migrated to this state from the north (most landing in the Charlotte area), it is now a swing-state. If such a high percentage of large-city Americans were Republicans, my guess is you would be a little adamant about wanting the popular vote to decide the election.

As for the '92 election, if you are correct in what you said, then I will point some of the blame toward the Republicans who put bumper stickers on their cars. I lost count how many which said "Like the Majority of People, I Didn't Vote for Him". I took that as to meaning Bush got more votes than Clinton. However, that was the one election which there was a third viable candidate (I voted for Perot...and was hardly alone). As such, no one was going to get 50% of the votes in a three-horse race.
Click to expand...

I have been advocating for the popular vote since the 1980s because the electoral college is a really stupid and undemocratic way to select a leader. Why does it matter to you where a citizen of the United States lives when they vote? Are the people in North Dakota special because they live in a $hitty sparsely-populated backwater? Of course not, all votes should count the same, regardless of location. I don't care at all about land mass or population density or political party for that matter, all votes should count the same.

By the way, how is the popular vote not a "viable solution." It works in every other free country except maybe 3 or 4 places like Burundi that we talked about yesterday.
 
Last edited:
steverocks35 said:
I have been advocating for the popular vote since the 1980s because the electoral college is a really stupid and undemocratic way to select a leader. Why does it matter to you where a citizen of the United States lives when they vote? Are the people in North Dakota special because they live in a $hitty sparsely-populated backwater? Of course not, all votes should count the same, regardless of location. I don't care at all about land mass or population density or political party for that matter, all votes should count the same.

By the way, how is the popular vote not a "viable solution." It works in every other free country except maybe 3 or 4 places like Burundi that we talked about yesterday.
Click to expand...

The USA is different from most countries. We're divided (sadly, literally and figuratively) into different states with different laws. As such, we have a different way of electing our officials. I never said the EC was fair as is. I would rather see something other than a winner-take-all when it comes to the electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska already utilize this). I believe Oklahoma has 7 electoral votes. I would not have a problem with the Democrat candidate getting 1, 2, or 3 of those 7 electorals if they got enough votes. That would mean a democrat in that state has a vote which counts. I'm from upstate NY where there are plenty of frustrated republicans because they concede their vote does not count in NY. I'm certain they would love if the Republican candidate got some of those 29 electorals.
 
WaymanFan said:
The USA is different from most countries. We're divided (sadly, literally and figuratively) into different states with different laws. As such, we have a different way of electing our officials. I never said the EC was fair as is. I would rather see something other than a winner-take-all when it comes to the electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska already utilize this). I believe Oklahoma has 7 electoral votes. I would not have a problem with the Democrat candidate getting 1, 2, or 3 of those 7 electorals if they got enough votes. That would mean a democrat in that state has a vote which counts. I'm from upstate NY where there are plenty of frustrated republicans because they concede their vote does not count in NY. I'm certain they would love if the Republican candidate got some of those 29 electorals.
Click to expand...

If you're going to do that why not just use the popular vote? Many other countries have states and provinces, are just as divided as we are, and they use the popular vote with no problems. I don't understand why people want to make it so complicated.
 
Our Founding Fathers were scared to death of the public at large. That's why the Electoral College exists.

With each passing day, the Founding Fathers get smarter and smarter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
A theory on what’s causing a late year slump & maybe fewer wins this year
Replies
1
Views
2K
Soonerinkc
Soonerinkc
B
Moving forward
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oliver Hardy
Oliver Hardy
B
Pioneer to progress
Replies
2
Views
2K
womenssports
W
Sooner04
Board Observations From Afar
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
TINY
T
B
Washington helps propel NHS girls past Edmond North
Replies
1
Views
1K
mikeareese
M
Back
Top